R. GURURAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions are disposed of by this common order since the facts and the grounds involved in these petitions are same or similar. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS were appointed as part time measurers and thereafter as full time measurers by the first Respondent at its showroom at Chitradurga. Petitioners were receiving salary from the First Respondent under the bona fide belief and impression that the First Respondent is paying proper and bonafide wages. Thereafter they were asked to work in the show room at Davangere. There they came to know that the measurers working at Davangere were paid the higher rate of wages and that the difference in wages was to the extent of Rs. 1200/ -. They made a representation seeking for justice in the matter. In the absence of any response, petitioners approached the minimum Wages Authority for the purpose of relief in the matter. The objections were filed by the respondents. Matter was heard. After hearing, the authority has chosen to pass the impugned orders. In the impugned order the authority allowed the application in part and also awarded penalty only 5 times instead of 10 times. It is in these circumstances, petitioners are before me. 2. Respondents have entered appearance through their Counsel. ( 3 ) MATTERS are heard for final disposal. ( 4 ) . Venkatesh C. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that the authority is wrong in denying relief to the petitioner. He would invite my attention to the notification at annexure-A dtd 19-8-1987, with regard to the minimum wages payable to a measurer to contend that the authority has failed to provide the relief despite annexure-A. He would say that factually the petitioners sought for minimum wages on the ground of equal pay for equal work in terms of explanation 2 Clause (4) of the notification in question. He would say that instead of considering this, the authority has chosen to provide benefit by considering the wages payable to a measurer in terms of Group V Sl. No. 6 of the notification, annexure-A. He therefore says that the matter requires reconsideration. ( 5 ) PER contra, Learned Counsel would argue that petitioners are not entitled for these wages in the light of transfer of the petitioners by the respondent. He wants the petitions to be dismissed. No. 6 of the notification, annexure-A. He therefore says that the matter requires reconsideration. ( 5 ) PER contra, Learned Counsel would argue that petitioners are not entitled for these wages in the light of transfer of the petitioners by the respondent. He wants the petitions to be dismissed. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 7 ) MATERAIL on record would reveal that the employees have chosen to move the authorities by way of an application with regard to benefits in terms of the notification dtd 19-8-1987 annexure-A. From annexure-A it is seen that the State Government has chosen to provide minimum wages groupwise. Group-V Sl. No. 6 consists of various categories of workmen engaged in Drying, storing, washing, ironing, measuring, loading and unloading in warehouse godowns and store rooms. The State Government has also in terms of explanation 2 to Clause (4) to the notification has chosen to say that categories of employees not mentioned in the schedule shall be paid the same wages payable to the employees in the employment of similar nature. When the workmen complained that they have not been paid the same wages as in the case of similar workmen working as measurers in the show room, the authorities have chosen to provide benefits by considering their case as falling in Group-5 Sl. No. 6. What the authority has forgotten is that the petitioners were not working in warehouses, godowns or store rooms in terms of group-5 of the notification. Therefore the minimum wages authority in my view is wrong in relying on Group-5 Sl. No. 6 of the notification. On the other hand, petitioners ought to have been granted the same wages as in the case of measurers working in the show room. The non grant of minimum wages in terms of Explanation 2 to Clause (4) requires my interference. ( 8 ) SRI S. N. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the respondents would argue that transfer of the workman was only for a temporary period and that therefore they are not eligible for benefits. I am afraid that this argument is not available. Equal pay for equal work is a well established principle in the industrial jurisprudence. ( 8 ) SRI S. N. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the respondents would argue that transfer of the workman was only for a temporary period and that therefore they are not eligible for benefits. I am afraid that this argument is not available. Equal pay for equal work is a well established principle in the industrial jurisprudence. When the measurer in the show room is given a higher pay scale, it is un-understandable to me as to why the same is not made available to similar workmen in similar circumstances. It is in this context, the notification itself provides for same treatment in terms of Clause 2 (4) of the notification. Moreover what is interesting in this case is that the management has not chosen to say anywhere that this notification is not applicable or not available to the petitioners. The management has not chosen to question the quantum in terms of the claim made by the workmen except raising the contention of denial in the Statement of objections. Moreover, the management has also not pointed out any legal defect with regard to the impugned order. The workmen have come before this Court only with regard to quantum in terms of Clause 2 (4) of the notification. Taking an overall view of the matter, particular in the light of applicability of Clause 2 (4) of the notification, I have no option but to accept the petition. The impugned order with regard to quantum of the amount is set aside, instead the workmen are entitled for benefits in terms of their claim made by them. The same is to be made over after providing deductions towards any payment if so made by the management within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 9 ) THE workmen have also claimed penalty at 10 times the amount claimed in terms of prayer-C to the petition. The authorities in the impugned order have chosen to provide five times the penalty in the case on hand. Since the amount is substantial in terms of the present order, I deem it proper to provide the penalty at two times instead of 10 times as sought for, taking into consideration the difficult situation being faced by the cotton industry. This I think would meet the ends of justice. Since the amount is substantial in terms of the present order, I deem it proper to provide the penalty at two times instead of 10 times as sought for, taking into consideration the difficult situation being faced by the cotton industry. This I think would meet the ends of justice. It is made clear that if the payments are not made in terms of this order within time, the workmen are entitled for 12% interest from the date of default till the date of settlement.